Human–Robot Co-Facilitation in Collaborative Learning: A Comparative Study of the Effects of Human and Robot Facilitation on Learning Experience and Learning Outcomes

J Pub Date : 2024-07-14 DOI:10.3390/j7030014
Ilona Buchem, Stefano Sostak, Lewe Christiansen
{"title":"Human–Robot Co-Facilitation in Collaborative Learning: A Comparative Study of the Effects of Human and Robot Facilitation on Learning Experience and Learning Outcomes","authors":"Ilona Buchem, Stefano Sostak, Lewe Christiansen","doi":"10.3390/j7030014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Collaborative learning has been widely studied in higher education and beyond, suggesting that collaboration in small groups can be effective for promoting deeper learning, enhancing engagement and motivation, and improving a range of cognitive and social outcomes. The study presented in this paper compared different forms of human and robot facilitation in the game of planning poker, designed as a collaborative activity in the undergraduate course on agile project management. Planning poker is a consensus-based game for relative estimation in teams. Team members collaboratively estimate effort for a set of project tasks. In our study, student teams played the game of planning poker to estimate the effort required for project tasks by comparing task effort relative to one another. In this within- and between-subjects study, forty-nine students in eight teams participated in two out of four conditions. The four conditions differed in respect to the form of human and/or robot facilitation. Teams 1–4 participated in conditions C1 human online and C3 unsupervised robot, while teams 5–8 participated in conditions C2 human face to face and C4 supervised robot co-facilitation. While planning poker was facilitated by a human teacher in conditions C1 and C2, the NAO robot facilitated the game-play in conditions C3 and C4. In C4, the robot facilitation was supervised by a human teacher. The study compared these four forms of facilitation and explored the effects of the type of facilitation on the facilitator’s competence (FC), learning experience (LX), and learning outcomes (LO). The results based on the data from an online survey indicated a number of significant differences across conditions. While the facilitator’s competence and learning outcomes were rated higher in human (C1, C2) compared to robot (C3, C4) conditions, participants in the supervised robot condition (C4) experienced higher levels of focus, motivation, and relevance and a greater sense of control and sense of success, and rated their cognitive learning outcomes and the willingness to apply what was learned higher than in other conditions. These results indicate that human supervision during robot-led facilitation in collaborative learning (e.g., providing hints and situational information on demand) can be beneficial for learning experience and outcomes as it allows synergies to be created between human expertise and flexibility and the consistency of the robotic assistance.","PeriodicalId":73524,"journal":{"name":"J","volume":"54 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/j7030014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Collaborative learning has been widely studied in higher education and beyond, suggesting that collaboration in small groups can be effective for promoting deeper learning, enhancing engagement and motivation, and improving a range of cognitive and social outcomes. The study presented in this paper compared different forms of human and robot facilitation in the game of planning poker, designed as a collaborative activity in the undergraduate course on agile project management. Planning poker is a consensus-based game for relative estimation in teams. Team members collaboratively estimate effort for a set of project tasks. In our study, student teams played the game of planning poker to estimate the effort required for project tasks by comparing task effort relative to one another. In this within- and between-subjects study, forty-nine students in eight teams participated in two out of four conditions. The four conditions differed in respect to the form of human and/or robot facilitation. Teams 1–4 participated in conditions C1 human online and C3 unsupervised robot, while teams 5–8 participated in conditions C2 human face to face and C4 supervised robot co-facilitation. While planning poker was facilitated by a human teacher in conditions C1 and C2, the NAO robot facilitated the game-play in conditions C3 and C4. In C4, the robot facilitation was supervised by a human teacher. The study compared these four forms of facilitation and explored the effects of the type of facilitation on the facilitator’s competence (FC), learning experience (LX), and learning outcomes (LO). The results based on the data from an online survey indicated a number of significant differences across conditions. While the facilitator’s competence and learning outcomes were rated higher in human (C1, C2) compared to robot (C3, C4) conditions, participants in the supervised robot condition (C4) experienced higher levels of focus, motivation, and relevance and a greater sense of control and sense of success, and rated their cognitive learning outcomes and the willingness to apply what was learned higher than in other conditions. These results indicate that human supervision during robot-led facilitation in collaborative learning (e.g., providing hints and situational information on demand) can be beneficial for learning experience and outcomes as it allows synergies to be created between human expertise and flexibility and the consistency of the robotic assistance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
协作学习中的人机协同辅导:人类和机器人辅助对学习体验和学习成果影响的比较研究
协作学习已在高等教育及其他领域得到广泛研究,表明小组协作可以有效促进深入学习、提高参与度和积极性,并改善一系列认知和社会成果。本文介绍的研究比较了人类和机器人在规划扑克游戏中的不同协助形式,该游戏被设计为敏捷项目管理本科课程中的一项协作活动。规划扑克是一种基于共识的团队相对估算游戏。团队成员共同估算一组项目任务的工作量。在我们的研究中,学生团队玩规划扑克游戏,通过比较任务的相对努力程度来估算项目任务所需的努力程度。在这项被试内和被试间研究中,8 个团队的 49 名学生参加了四个条件中的两个条件。这四个条件在人类和/或机器人协助形式上有所不同。1-4小组参与了C1人类在线和C3无监督机器人的条件,而5-8小组则参与了C2人类面对面和C4有监督机器人共同协助的条件。在 C1 和 C2 条件下,规划扑克牌的工作由人类教师协助进行,而在 C3 和 C4 条件下,NAO 机器人则协助进行游戏。在C4中,机器人在人类教师的监督下进行协助。研究比较了这四种协助形式,并探讨了协助类型对协助者能力(FC)、学习经验(LX)和学习成果(LO)的影响。根据在线调查的数据得出的结果显示,不同条件下存在一些显著差异。与机器人(C3、C4)条件相比,人类(C1、C2)条件下主持人的能力和学习成果评分更高,而在机器人监督条件下(C4),参与者体验到了更高的专注度、积极性和相关性,以及更强的控制感和成功感,他们对认知学习成果和学以致用意愿的评分也高于其他条件。这些结果表明,在以机器人为主导的协作学习过程中,人类的监督(例如,根据需要提供提示和情景信息)对学习体验和结果是有益的,因为它可以在人类的专业知识和灵活性与机器人协助的一致性之间产生协同效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
J
J
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Human–Robot Co-Facilitation in Collaborative Learning: A Comparative Study of the Effects of Human and Robot Facilitation on Learning Experience and Learning Outcomes Synergisms between Surfactants, Polymers, and Alcohols to Improve the Foamability of Mixed Systems Aerodynamic Modification of High-Rise Buildings by the Adjoint Method Aerodynamic Modification of High-Rise Buildings by the Adjoint Method Blockchain in Smart Grids: A Bibliometric Analysis and Scientific Mapping Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1